Method and apparatus for protecting information and privacy

ABSTRACT

A system for protecting software against piracy while protecting a user&#39;s privacy enables enhancements to the protection software in a user device and extended protections against piracy. The protection system allows the user device to postpone validation of purchased tags stored in a tag table for installed software and to re-establish ownership of a tag table to recover from invalidation of a tag table identifier value resulting from revelation of a tag table identifier value. Continued use of the tag table is provided by the use of credits associated with a tag table. A protection center is protected against denial of service attacks by making calls to the protection center cost time or money to the attackers.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.10/429,218, filed on May 2, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,406,593, whichclaims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/377,580, filedon May 2, 2002.

The entire teachings of the above applications are incorporated hereinby reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Software or information piracy is the activity of using or making copiesof software or information without the authorization of the creator orlegitimate owner of that software or information. Piracy is prevalent inthe computer software application industry where people frequently makeunlicensed illegal copies of a software application. The application maybe copied for use among a circle of acquaintances or for re-productionand commercial profit. Other types of piracy include acts of copyinginformation such as musical recordings or an electronically readableversion of documentation or an electronic book. In all cases, piracycosts billions of dollars of lost profits to legitimate businessannually.

The software and information technology industries have responded to thethreat of piracy through the use of locking schemes. Locking schemes caninclude software locking mechanisms, licenses and specialized hardwaredevices which prevent unauthorized use of software, information, or anentire electronic device. These schemes seek to prevent adversaries frombeing able to freely copy software.

There are many types of software locking mechanisms. For example, amanufacturer can encrypt portions of a copy of a software program withan encryption key uniquely associated with that copy. A customer whopurchases the software is given the associated decryption key whichallows decryption and execution of the software. Another form ofsoftware protection mechanism involves a “Certificate of Authenticity”supplied with the purchase of a copy of a software program. TheCertificate of Authenticity includes a unique number associated with thecopy. During installation of the copy of software, the copy number isrequested and must be entered correctly by the user. If the copy numberentered matches a number expected by the installation program, the copyof the software is assumed to be legitimate and is installed andexecuted as being legitimate. If the number entered is incorrect, thesoftware will not install properly. Neither of the above schemesprovides full protection against illegal copying and use of software.For the scheme employing encryption, if the original customer wishes todistribute illegal copies, he or she needs only to transfer the copytogether with the decryption key to others. Similarly, the originalpurchaser of the copy of software can circumvent the protection offeredby the Certificate of Authenticity by passing the software along withthe Certificate of Authenticity to other users.

Protection against piracy schemes often employ features of a UserDevice's operating system. Thus, it is important to protect theoperating system against modifications that would circumvent theprotections. Ensuring that an operating system is unmodified can beachieved though hardware. An example of a hardware protection scheme forthe integrity of the operating system is provided in U.S. Pat. No.3,996,449 which discloses a method for determining if a program or aportion of a program when running on a computer is unmodified. In thissystem, a hash function is applied to a user's identification code orkey along with the text of the program itself in a special tamper-proofhardware checking device. The checking device compares a resulting valuefrom the hash function with a verifier value to see if the program textis correct. If the text is correct, the program is allowed to execute onthe device.

A hardware related approach assigns a unique identifier to eachprocessor that can execute software. Software copies purchased for aUser Device include the identifier of the processor on that device. Whena User Device executes a software copy, the identifier included in thatsoftware copy is compared with the Device's processor identifier.Processing is enabled only if these two identifiers are equal. Thisapproach has a number of drawbacks. In its basic version, there is nostopping a pirate from modifying a legitimate software copy by replacingthe original identifier with the identifiers of the processors on whichhe or his illegal customers wish to install this software. Furthermore,this method inextricably links a software copy to a single User Device.This renders it impossible to move the software another User Device asrequired, for example, when a customer upgrades his computer. Finally,the unique processor identifier on User Devices has raised graveconcerns of intrusion on users' privacy through monitoring theirsoftware purchases which are identified by the same number.

Digital water marking is a technique that places invisible, or inaudibleidentifying data in certain types of content primarily to identify theuser to whom the content was sold. If that same content is foundelsewhere, then the original buyer is suspected of participating inprivacy.

Ideally, watermarks are persistent in that they can not be removed oraltered without degrading the content. While these techniques contributeto detection of theft, they do not prevent someone from copying thecontent, so they require legal intervention to prevent continuedcopyright infringement. Further there are many attacks on such systems.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the invention, a method for protecting softwareagainst piracy while protecting a user's privacy is presented. Themethod of protecting software enables enhancements to the protectionsoftware in a user device and extended protections against piracy.Protection information is signed at a protection center using asignature key. The protection information is sent from a protectioncenter to a supervising program of a user device. The supervisingprogram of the user device verifies the signature using a verificationkey for the protection center signature key. The protection informationincludes at least one of superfingerprints, a software validator, asoftware patch, a device-validator, digital signature verification keysand associated digital signature verification keys, a parameter package,a list of one-way function values, and a software update set.

The software validator may include a portion of software and a hashfunction value of the portion. The software patch may include new codefor the supervising program and an operating system. Thedevice-validator may check a property of the user device. The digitalsignature verification key lists may include names of entitiesauthorized to sign messages employed in protection of software, andtheir associated digital signature verification keys. The parameterpackage may include parameter values to be employed by a supervisingprogram on the user device for protection of software. The parametervalues may be employed by the supervising program to enforce softwareprotection parameter values and adjusted at different times.

The list of one-way function values may include a one-way function, avalue, and an action. The value is a result of applying the one-wayfunction to a second value.

A method of protecting software checks if use of software is dependenton purchase of another software. The method determines whether thesoftware may be used by checking whether any combination of at least twotags together convey permission to use the software.

A protection center sends protection information to a class of userdevices having common properties by signing a message including theprotection information to be sent, the common properties, and anexpiration time for the protection information. The signed message maybe sent to user devices or at least one storage device and downloaded byone of the user devices from one of the other user devices or one of thestorage devices. The signed message may be received by a supervisingprogram on each user device. The supervising program verifies that themessage has been signed by the protection center using a verificationkey on the user device, that the common properties correspond to one ofa set of actual properties of the user device and a set of propertieslisted in the supervising program, and that the expiration time isgreater than a current time. Upon successful verification, the userdevice accepts the message.

A secure authorization server conveys permission to a user device toperform an action by sending a value from the domain of a one wayfunction. A supervising program on the user device applies the one-wayfunction to the value to obtain a range value from a range of theone-way function. If the range value equals a stored range value fromthe range already held on the user device, the user device may performthat action during a time period associated with the value and thestored range value. The action may be postponement of a required call-upby the user device to a guardian center.

A secure authorization server conveys permission to a user device toperform an action by sending a value from the domain of a one wayfunction. A supervising program on the user device verifies a signatureon the signed message as coming from the secure authoritative server. Ifverified, the supervising program performs the action during the timeperiod. The action may be postponement of a required call-up by the userdevice to a guardian center.

A user device is permitted to postpone validation of purchased tagsstored in a tag table for installed software. A supervising program ofthe user device determines credits associated with the tag tableidentifier. Upon determining sufficient credits, the supervising programallows the tag table to remain valid at a first time. The first time isafter a time to next call-up contained in a latest continuation messageassociated with the tag table.

Continued use of a tag table is provided by the use of creditsassociated with a tag table. Upon receiving a call-up for a tag table ata first time, the first time past a time to next call-up held in a lastcontinuation message sent to a user device for the tag table, a guardiancenter updates in the next continuation message the credits remainingfor the tag table based on one or more of the credits in the lastcontinuation message, the first time, and the time to next call-up heldin the last continuation message.

The guardian center may decrease the number of available credits, if theuser device indicates in a call-up message that its user devicedescriptive values have significantly changed. The supervising programmay prevent the use of credits if the user device descriptive valueshave changed significantly since the occurrence of a previouscontinuation message.

A system of call-ups including continuation messages are employed toprevent a tag table identifier to be present on multiple user devices. Acontinuation message is requested by storing a call-up message in a userdevice. The call-up message includes a. a tag table identifier value; b.a set of user device descriptive values; c. a large randomly generatednumber; and d. a hash function. A hash function is applied to thecombination of the set of user device descriptive values and the largerandomly generated number to provide a hash result value. The tag tableidentifier value and the hash result value in a call-up message aresecurely sent from the user device to a guardian center. Upon receivingthe call-up message, the guardian center invalidates tag tableidentifier values that have participated in more than a specified numberof call-ups over a specified time. The guardian center then forms acontinuation message by signing a message containing the call-upmessage, and at least one of a list of valid tag table identifiervalues, a time to next call-up for each valid tag table identifier valueand an indication of the invalid tag table identifier values. Theguardian center then securely sends the continuation message to the userdevice. The supervising program on the user device verifies thesignature on the continuation message and that the continuation messageincludes the call-up message. The supervising program invalidates theassociated tag table for each invalidated tag table identifier value;and stores the continuation message.

A user device can re-establish ownership of a tag table to recover frominvalidation of a tag table identifier value. The user device securelysends a message to an authorized server. The message includes a new tagidentifier, a tag identifier, an original tag table identifier and anownership certificate pertaining to the original tag table identifier.The authorized server verifies that the ownership certificate pertainsto the original tag table identifier and securely sends a digitallysigned message to the user device allowing the user device to employ thenew tag table identifier. The authorized server creates an associationbetween the second tag table identifier and the original tag tableidentifier. The new tag table identifier and the tag table identifierare both related to the original tag table identifier. The authorizedserver ensures that call-ups including the tag table identifier withoutthe new tag table identifier are rejected.

The user device includes the new tag table identifier in a futurecall-up message. The guardian center verifies the association betweenthe new table identifier and the original tag table identifier and theguardian center performs further processing based on the original tagtable identifier.

Ownership of a tag table can be re-established by employing a one-wayfunction. A user device securely sends a message including a new tagtable identifier to an authorized server. The authorized server verifiesthat applying the one-way function to the new tag table identifieryields a tag table identifier. Said yielded tag table identifier isalready stored on the authorized server and associated with an originaltag table identifier. The new tag table identifier and said yielded tagtable identifier are both related to the original tag table identifier.The authorized server creates an association between the new tag tableidentifier and the original tag table identifier and ensures thatcall-ups including said yielded tag table identifier not including thenew tag table identifier are rejected. The user device includes the newtag table identifier in a call-up message. The guardian center verifiesthe association between the new table identifier and the original tagtable identifier and performs further processing based on the originaltag table identifier.

A tag can be obtained based on a proof of purchase created at anotherlocation, for example, a store. The proof of purchase is created byselecting a large random integer which is unlikely to be guessed,creating a message including the large random integer and adding thelarge random integer to a list of integers maintained by a vendor.

The message may include at least one of a name of a software, a hashvalue of the software, and a usage policy for the software. The messagemay be downloaded by the user and employed to obtain a tag for thesoftware. The message may be associated with the software at a point ofsale and transferred to a purchaser, securely concealed until opened bythe purchaser and signed upon receipt of the message, the vendor checkswhether the large random integer is in the list of integers and uponsuccessful check, the vendor may allow issuance of a tag for softwareand remove the large random integer from the list of integers.

A method for protecting a protection center against denial of serviceattacks is presented. In one embodiment, a puzzle is formed at theprotection center. The puzzle includes a function and a value in therange of the function. Execution of the function causes at least one ofa registration or a call-up to the protection center to consumeresources of a calling user device. The protection center sends thevalue to the requester of a service in the user device. The protectioncenter receives the second value from the requester, tests whether thefunction applied to the second value equals the value in the range ofthe function and offers the service, if the test is successful.

In an alternate embodiment, a request including a token of monetaryvalue is formed at a user device. The request requires resources of theuser device. The request is sent to the protection center and grantedonly if the protection center verifies payment of the monetary value.

An organization seeking to maintain private information centers can havecontrol of a verification and signature key pair, denoted anorganization verification key and an organization signature key. Anorganization's security center is authorized to generate and use asignature key and verification key pair based on a master authorizationsignature key by allowing the security center to generate the signatureand verification keys and signing with the master authorizationsignature key the organization verification key. The user device mayrecognize the validity of the organization verification key by verifyingthe signature of the master authorization signature key in the signedorganization verification key.

Repudiation of a call-up message is prevented by requiring each userdevice to sign each call-up message with a key whose owner can beestablished by a third party.

A method of setting time on a trusted clock on a user device ispresented. A time request containing a first large randomly generatednumber is sent to a certified time server. A supervising program in theuser device waits for less than a specified number of seconds until thecertified time server sends a signed message including a second largerandomly generated number and a time value. The supervising program setsa trusted clock in the user device to the time value included in thesigned message provided that the signed message from the certified timeserver has arrived within the specified number of seconds after therequest and the second randomly generated number in the signed messageis the same as the first randomly generated number in the request.Thereafter the supervising program advances the trusted clock value inaccordance with elapsed time read from a counter.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The foregoing will be apparent from the following more particulardescription of example embodiments of the invention, as illustrated inthe accompanying drawings in which like reference characters refer tothe same parts throughout the different views. The drawings are notnecessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustratingembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 1 illustrates a system for protecting software against piracy whileprotecting users' privacy;

FIG. 2 illustrates the software architecture of the User Device shown inFIG. 1 including a User Space and an operating system;

FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for allowing use ofsoftware;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for allowing use ofsoftware based on two tags;

FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating the steps performed by theSupervising Program on the User Device upon receipt of a downloadedProtection Information List;

FIG. 6, is a flow chart illustrating the steps for obtaining a call-uppostponement by use of a Function-Value List;

FIG. 7 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for sending a Call-Upmessage securely to a Guardian Center;

FIG. 8 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for accepting aContinuation Message;

FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for verifying credit;

FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating an alternate method for verifyingcredit;

FIG. 11 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for preparing a call-upwith current User Device Descriptive Values;

FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating a method for securely purchasingsoftware;

FIG. 13 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for a method of obtaininga new tag identifier;

FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating the steps for another method ofobtaining a new tag identifier;

FIG. 15 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for requesting areplacement identifier;

FIG. 16 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for maintaining a privateprotection center;

FIG. 17 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for verifying softwareownership through a third party;

FIGS. 18 and 19 are flowcharts illustrating the steps for setting timeon a user device; and

FIG. 20 is a flowchart illustrating the steps for detecting use of areader on a user device.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

A description of example embodiments of the invention follows.

Before description of embodiments of the invention are provided,definitions of terms to aid in understanding the various elementsassociated with the invention are provided as follows:

A Tag indicates a right to use a copy of some software. A Tag Tableconsists of a collection of Tags and other information. The Tag Tablealso includes a Tag Table header that uniquely identifies the Tag Table.The Tag Table header can include information concerning User Device usestatistics and can include a Continuation Message. The Tag Table headeralso includes a Tag Table Identifier value ID. A User Device can haveone or more Tag Tables, each with its own Tag Table Identifier value. Toprotect privacy, the only communication between a User Device and theoutside world has to do with Tag Table identifiers, not with theunderlying Tags.

Call-Ups initiated and executed by the Supervising Program from a UserDevice to a Guardian Center occur from time to time. Call-Ups areinitiated in accordance with a Call-Up Policy, depending on whether acertain amount of usage of a copy of software has occurred, or a certainamount of time has elapsed since the last Call-Up, or when a networkconnection is made, or some combination of the above. A Call-Up may alsobe required soon after a Supervising Program has been booted. A Call-Upmay be required when the difference between the current time as measuredby an absolute time counter and the time from the last Call-Up exceeds avalue specified in the Call-Up Policy.

Fields representing features of the User Device's (internal) environmentwhich are given by User Device Descriptive Values “(UDDV)”. Examples ofUser Device Descriptive Values include, but are not limited to, a UserDevice processor's unique serial number, the number of files of aspecified kind stored on the User Device's non-volatile storage device,features and numerical values derived from the User Device's datastructures describing the physical layout of the file system and otherdata in the storage device. The UDDVs are chosen so that they are onlyslowly changing, if at all, during use of the User Device.

A Superfingerprint is a collection of data and computer programsdesigned to enable the detection and subsequent prevention of use of aninfringing copy of software or of an infringing use of a legitimate copyof software.

A hash function F is a mathematical function for mapping data X to dataF(X) such that if X and Y are unequal, then it is highly likely thatF(X) and F(Y) are unequal. In an example hash function, X can be asequence of bytes. Let p be a randomly chosen, but henceforth-keptfixed, 64 bit prime number. The sequence X of bytes is viewed as anumber (written to the base 256, where the bytes are the digits of thatnumber) and F(X)=X mod p. Thus the value F(X) is a 64 bit string, nomatter how long X is. Another example of a hash function is the identityfunction I(X)=X which simply reproduces the string X.

A one-way function H has the property that given X, it is easy tocompute Y=H(X), but given the value Y and the function H, it isintractable to find a V such that H(V)=Y. The term “intractable” meansthat the computational time required is practically unfeasible in thesize of X, according to the present state of the art. An example of aclass of unaliasable hash functions is provided by the SHA-1 FederalInformation Processing standard, published by the National Institute ofStandards.

A nonce is a randomly chosen number or string intended to occur onlyonce. In the present invention, nonces are often chosen to be largeenough that they are unlikely to be guessed by chance.

Software is herein construed to be any digital information, includingbut not limited to, computer programs, text, data, databases, audio,video, images, or any other information capable of being representeddigitally or as a signal, said software being accessed by or used ondevices such as computers or special purpose devices. Use of a copy ofsoftware includes, but is not limited to, reading, displaying, storing,modifying, broadcasting, or executing that software.

Piracy of software in this invention means use of software in a mannerthat infringes on intellectual property rights or other rights in thatsoftware of the owner or provider of said software. Piracy of softwareincludes, but is not limited to, making and using illegal copies, usinga copy in a manner not permitted by the owner or provider of thesoftware, reverse engineering the software and creating and usingmodified versions of the software without permission of the owner orprovider of said software.

Further details are included in U.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074,filed on Nov. 3, 2000, the contents of which are incorporated herein byreference.

A description of preferred embodiments of the invention follows.

FIG. 1 illustrates a system for protecting software against piracy whileprotecting users' privacy, the system including a Vendor 110, an Authoror Provider of Software 170, a Guardian Center 130, additionalProtection centers 150, a Certified Time Server 160, and a User Device140. The Vendor 110 may be a physical, mail-order, web-based or otherkind of store including a storefront for an author or provider of theSoftware. There is a multiplicity of User Devices 140, operated by userswho may attempt to pirate software. The invention allows a multiplicityof each of the components in FIG. 1, but each of these components canpotentially serve to enable purchases of software and to protect againstpiracy of Software on every User Device. When a user (not shown) at UserDevice 140 purchases software, the User Device or an agent of the UserDevice sends a Purchase Order 101 to a Vendor 110. Vendor 110, if thePurchase Order passes certain tests, signs the Purchase Order, or hasthe Author/Provider 170 sign it, and sends it to the User Device 140.The User Device installs the signed Purchase Order and relatedinformation as a Tag into a Tag Table (FIG. 2 213). Periodically, theUser Device 140 issues a Call-Up 103 in which it sends information aboutone or more Tag Tables (FIG. 2, 213) to the Guardian Center “GC” 130. Ifthe information sent to the Guardian Center 130 in the Call-Up 103passes certain tests to be described later on, then the Guardian Center130 will send a Continuation Message 104 back to the User Deviceindicating which of the one or more Tag Tables can be further used andthe time interval with which the next Call-Up should occur. Otherinformation may come either from the Guardian Center or the additionalProtection Center 135. That information has the property that it may besent to a whole class of machines sharing common properties (e.g., theyrun the same operating system on the same instruction set architecture).That information includes Superfingerprints as described in U.S.application Ser. No. 09/706,074 and other information as will bedescribed below.

An exemplary User Device is found in FIG. 2. It includes a possiblyinsecure User Space 201 containing a Purchasing Program (alternatively,this program may reside on another device) and a secure operating system202. “Secure” in this context means that the owner of the User Devicecannot modify its contents. U.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074,describes methods for ensuring such security. The Kernel 210 is astandard operating system kernel such as, Microsoft Windows 2000 sold bythe Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash. The Tag Table or Tag Tables213 hold Tags each conveying a Vendor-specified Usage Policy for anassociated copy of Software. A Tag T for a copy of software SW permitsthe use of SW provided that use accords with the Usage Policy of T andthe Tag Table TT on which T is found is valid. The validity of TT isestablished by periodic Call-ups 103 (FIG. 1) and 104 (FIG. 1) to theGuardian Center 130 (FIG. 1). Superfingerprints 215 include data andprograms used to identify Software. The Supervising Program 211 managesthe protection against piracy and enforces software Usage Policies usingthe data in the one or more Tag Tables 213 and the Superfingerprints 215as described in U.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074. The currentinvention describes several enhancements to U.S. application Ser. No.09/706,074.

1. Extensible Supervising Programs and Protection Information.

In order to incorporate new methods of protection and to counteremerging piracy attacks, it is useful to enhance and modify theSupervising Program or some other portion of the Operating System kernelfrom time to time. Also, from time to time, new instances of Softwarewill require protection against piracy. These enhancements and extendedprotections against piracy are enabled by use of digitally signedProtection Information downloaded to the User Device from a ProtectionInformation Center.

The Supervising Program on the User Device ensures that the ProtectionInformation present on the Device is up-to-date in a manner describedbelow. The Protection Information on a User Device includes but is notlimited to at least one of the following:

-   i. Superfingerprints as described in U.S. application Ser. No.    09/706,074.-   ii. A Software-Validator containing an identification of a portion    of software SW_portion that should be present on the User Device and    the hash function value of that portion, denoted H(SW_portion).    Periodically, on the User Device, SW_portion is fetched and is    compared against H(SW_portion). One use of Software-Validators is to    verify portions of the Operating System.-   iii. A Program Patch contains new code for the Supervising Program    or some portion of the Operating System.-   iv. A Device-Validator which is a procedure that checks some    property of a User Device. Examples of such a property include but    are not limited to the presence of certain hardware components.-   v. Digital Signature Verification Key Lists containing names of    entities authorized to sign various types of messages and their    associated signature verification keys. Examples include but are not    limited to pairs consisting of names of Vendors authorized to sign    Purchase Orders 102 and signature verification keys of those    Vendors; pairs consisting of a specific system component such as    Protection Information Center 150, Author/Provider 170, Certified    Time Server 160, or Guardian Center 130 and an associated signature    verification key.-   vi. A Parameter Package containing parameter values to be employed    by the Supervising Program on a User Device when enforcing software    piracy protection and that may require dynamic adjustments. A    Parameter Package contents may include but is not limited to    threshold values for software identification programs or times and    conditions for the activation or deactivation of various Supervising    Program functions.-   vii. A User Device can obtain the right to perform certain actions    by acquiring a secret value, where this secret value is verifiable    using information already present on the User Device. An example of    such an action is the delay of a mandated Call-Up message. Another    example is the permission to use some copy of Software without a Tag    or beyond the Usage Policy specified in a Tag. An exemplary    implementation of this mechanism is to include in the Protection    Information a Function-Value List comprising triples each including    a one-way function, a value in the range of that function, and an    action, e.g. (F1, W1, Action1), (F2, W2, Action2), . . . ,. In an    alternative embodiment, portions of this list (perhaps the entire    list) refer to the same function, so the list consists only of    values in the range of that function and actions. A function f is a    one-way function if it takes little time to compute the function    value f(x) given f and x, but given f and a value y, it is    computational intractable to determine an argument value x such that    f(x)=y. In a typical application, the system of this invention    disseminates an argument value V1 such that F1 (V1)=W1 thereby    enabling Action1. An exemplary application of a Function-Value List    in this invention is detailed in Section 4 and FIG. 6.-   viii. Software Update Sets.

Software Vendors routinely produce different versions of a particularsoftware SW, e.g., different versions of the game SimCity produced byElectronic Arts of California. Sometimes upgrades from one version toanother come free to a User who has purchased the first version. In thatcase, it is convenient for both the Vendor and the User to enable theUser to use the newer version without having to secure a new signedPurchase Order. To this end, the present invention employs a SoftwareUpdate Set. A Software Update Set includes information sufficient toidentify each of the versions of SW so that presence of a Tag for anyone of these versions automatically allows the use, subject to the UsagePolicy, of any version in the Update Set. Thus referring to FIG. 3, ifan Upgrade Set, not shown here, appears in the Protection Information onthe User Device and includes copies of Software N1 and N2, there is onthe User Device a valid Tag for N1, and the Supervising Programdetermines that N2 is being used on the User Device 301-307, then theTag in combination with this Upgrade Set implies that N2 may be used315.

2. Linked Tags.

In certain situations, a Vendor may predicate the Usage Policy in asigned Purchase Order PO2 incorporated in a Tag T2 for Software SW2 onthe presence in the User Device of a Tag T1 for some Software SW1. Moregenerally, the conditioning may be on the presence of several Tags. Anexample is that the signed Purchase Order PO2 may be obtained at areduced price if Software SW1 was purchased for use on the User Device.In an exemplary implementation of this functionality, the Usage Policyin PO2 explicitly requires the presence of a valid Tag T1 for SoftwareSW1. Referring to FIG. 4, the Supervising Program determines that SW2 isused on the User Device 401, the Supervising Program searches for avalid tag T2 for software SW2 402. If no such tag is found, then use ofsoftware SW2 is disallowed 408. The Supervising Program checks 407whether according to the tag T2 use of SW2 is conditioned on thepresence of another tag T1, if not then use of SW2 is permitted in 410.If yes, then the Supervising Program allows in 415 use of SW2, if T1 isfound and is valid.

3. Protection Information List Downloads.

Protection Information on a User Device must be kept up-to-date at alltimes. In an exemplary embodiment, a Protection Information Listdownloaded from a Protection Information Center is used to update theProtection Information already present on the User Device. Thedownloaded List incorporates a date of expiration and data for matchingthe particular Protection Information List to a particular class of UserDevices. The data used for matching the List to the User Device includesbut is not limited to one or more of the following, the User Devicetype, such as a personal computer or a mobile hand-held device, theinstruction set architecture of the processor in the User Device, theOperating System of this device. To achieve for the downloadedProtection Information List the requirements of currency and matching,the Supervising Program, or some agent acting for it, sends a request toa Protection Information Center or an agent of that Center. This requestspecifies the characteristics of the User Device to be matched by theProtection Information List. The Protection Information Center respondsby sending an appropriate Protection Information List digitally signedby the Protection Information Center. The List also includes anexpiration time so that the total message is SGN_PIC(User Device Data,expiration time, Protection Information List). FIG. 5 details the stepsperformed by the Supervising Program on the User Device upon receipt ofthe downloaded Protection Information List. At step 501, the SupervisingProgram receives the downloaded Protection Information List and performsthe tests and verifications detailed. If verifications do not succeed,then at step 508 use of downloaded Protection Information List isdisallowed. If verifications succeed, then at step 515 the SupervisingProgram installs the downloaded Protection Information List and uses itto update the Protection Information present on User Device.

Alternatively, a User Device may obtain an appropriate up-to-dateProtection Information List by transferring from another User Devicehaving the same User Device type or by transfer from some storagedevice. The fact that Protection Information Lists are digitally signedrenders the particular source immaterial.

Upon receipt of a new Protection Information List, the SupervisingProgram on the User Device verifies (i) the Protection InformationCenter's digital signature on the message (ii) that the User Device Typein the message equals the User Device Type of the User Device on whichthe Supervising Program runs (iii) that the expiration time(encompassing a date, hour, and perhaps a minute in an exemplaryembodiment) in the message is greater than the current time on the UserDevice. If any one of these verifications fails, then the ProtectionInformation List is invalid. If they all succeed, then the ProtectionInformation on the User Device is modified by the Supervising Programaccording to the Protection Information List.

4. Call-Up Graces.

In the preferred embodiment, the Continuation Message associated withTag Table TT contains a field that indicates the time (or a timeinterval) when the next Call-Up should occur for TT. This is called theTime of Next Call-Up. If the Clock value on the User Device exceeds theTime of Next Call-Up, then the Tag Table TT and hence Tags in TT becomeinactive. An inactive Tag for Software SW does not convey permission touse of SW. For various reasons, including the failure of one or moreGuardian Centers or of the network, it may be desirable to postpone theneed for a Call-Up and thus to preserve the activity of the Tags in theTag Table. Here are two exemplary embodiments of this postponement.

In one embodiment, a Protection Information Center causes a broadcast ofa digitally signed message stating that a Call-Up normally required tobe sent in a certain time interval may be postponed to a later interval.This broadcast may be performed over any one of a number ofcommunication channels available at the time, including but not limitedto cable, radio, television, newspaper, or telephone services.

A second embodiment uses the Function-Value List. When the need arisesto permit a postponement of Call-Ups for a time interval iX, theProtection Information Center arranges a broadcast of a value Vi to beused as follows. Recall that a function-value list is (or is equivalentto) a set of triples each consisting of a one-way function, a value inthe range of that function, and an action (F1, W1, Action1), (F2, W2,Action2), . . . . Because the functions are one-way, it takes littletime to compute the function value f(x) given f and x, but given f and avalue y, it is computationally intractable to determine an argumentvalue x such that f(x)=y. Referring to FIG. 6, and assuming that theUser Device requires a Call-Up postponement for time period iX, themethod for obtaining this postponement by use of the Function-Value Listproceeds as follows. The Supervising Program obtains a value Vi bybroadcast from a Protection Information Center. At step 601, theSupervising Program verifies the presence in a Function-Value List ofthe triple (Fi, Wi, Action_i) where Action_i allows a postponement of arequired Call-Up until after the time interval i X (for example, a givenday). The Supervising Program furthermore verifies that F(Vi)=Wi 603. Ifverification fails, at step 608 the Supervising Program does nothing. Ifverification succeeds, the Supervising Program proceeds to step 615 andallows postponement of the Call-Up and continuing validity of the TagTable TT, and the tags included in it, and continued use of the copiesof software associated with those tags. As explained above, theFunction-Value List is assumed to have been previously downloaded to theUser Device as part of a Protection Information List. Alternatively, theFunction-Value List may be included pre-installed in the SupervisingProgram, among other possibilities. The Protection Information Centermay employ the same variety of broadcast possibilities as in theembodiment above. A possible advantage of this embodiment is that thevalue Vi required for the postponement can consist of fewer charactersthan the digitally signed message in the first embodiment, withoutsacrificing security, and thus can be conveniently entered into the UserDevice by hand.

5. Call-Up Procedure and Continuation Messages.

According to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074, Tags controlling theuse of software on the User Device are stored in Tag Tables where eachTag Table TT has a Tag Table Identifier Value TTID associated with it.Furthermore, the identifier TTID is incorporated in each of the tagsstored in the tag table TT. This arrangement creates a link betweensoftware used on the user device and that User Device through the TagTable TT. If it were possible to create copies of the Tag Table TT andthe Tags therein on other User Devices, this would enable copies ofsoftware bought for use on one User Device to be illegally used on otherUser Devices thereby causing loss to the providers and vendors of saidsoftware. To prevent a Tag Table Identifier Value TTID from beingpresent simultaneously on a multiplicity of User Devices, which wouldenable illegal multiple use of Tags and their associated Software, U.S.application Ser. No. 09/706,074 employs a system of Call-Ups. Typically,a Call-Up Message is prepared by the Supervising Program on a UserDevice with reference to one or more Tag Table Identifier Values and issent to a Guardian Center. Responding to such a Call-Up, the GuardianCenter performs certain tests and prepares and sends a ContinuationMessage specifying the usability status of the Tag Tables involved inthe Call-Up.

In one exemplary embodiment, the Call-Up Message contains the followingfields: TTID, HASH(UDDV, NONCE), where TTID is a Tag Table Identifiervalue (in other embodiments a whole list may be sent together); HASH isa hash function such as SHA-1; NONCE is a nonce; UDDV stands for theUser Device Descriptive Values that characterize the current state ofthe User Device. The hash function value HASH(UDDV, NONCE) thus concealsthe values of the UDDV and will be referred to as CONCEAL(UDDV).

The UDDV comprises information about the current state of the UserDevice, which includes but is not limited to one or more of: the numberof files on the User Device, the sizes of files, the number ofdirectories, characteristics of B-trees used to locate files,characteristics of indexes used to access data, a processor identifyingnumber, a BIOS identifier, a network interface identifier, all thepreceding in reference to the User Device in question. In alternateembodiments, the UDDV may further include biometric information, if aUser Device is to be associated with a particular individual. Thepurpose of the NONCE is to conceal the values of the UDDV from thereceiver of the Call-Up message.

The Continuation Message responding to a Call-Up Message includes theCall-Up Message as well as a Time Interval (T1, T2) within which thenext Call-Up should occur, as well as a list of Tag Table Identifiervalues. On the User Device, the values UDDV and NONCE are stored in amanner associating these values with the Identifier value TTID. Otherinformation may be associated with the Call-Up such as the conditionsthat triggered the Call-Up.

With this background, we describe an embodiment of a Call-Up: i. TheUser Device may perform a Call-Up a) when the time exceeds T1, theearliest value in the Time Interval for Next Call-Up as recorded in thelast received Continuation Message or b) when the Supervising Program onthe User Device determines that the current values of the User DeviceDescriptive Values differ significantly from those associated with thelast received Continuation Message or c) because the User asks toperform a Call-Up.

-   ii. Preparing a Call-Up Message entails a) computing the current    values of the UDDV b) generating a NONCE c) computing the hash    function value CONCEAL(UDDV)=HASH(UDDV, NONCE) d) looking up the    TTID. The Call-Up message then consists of (TTID, CONCEAL(UDDV)). If    there are several Tag Table Identifier values, then they are all    sent together, preferably with the same CONCEAL(UDDV) in this    message. For clarity, we primarily discuss the case of a single Tag    Table Identifier value TTID.-   iii. Referring to FIG. 7, at step 701, the Supervising Program sends    the Call-Up message securely to a Guardian Center, possibly over an    anonymous channel, and retains the UDDV and NONCE values. Sending a    message securely customarily means sending it in an encrypted form    that cannot be modified in transit. An example of a secure    transmission protocol is SSL.-   iv. At step 702, the Guardian Center determines whether more than a    specified number K of different Call-Up Messages have been received    for this same Identifier value TTID within a specified time    period P. Two Call-Up Messages are different if they have different    conceal values HASH(UDDV, NONCE). Based on this determination, the    Guardian Center prepares, based on steps 703-706, at step 707 the    signed Continuation Message listing indicating which Tag Table    Identifier Values (if there are several) in the Call-Up Message are    valid, specifying a Time Interval (T1,T2) for the next Call-Up, and    including the Supervising Program's entire Call-Up Message. In an    exemplary embodiment, the Guardian Center further marks, at step    703, in its database the Tag Table Identifier Values that were    determined to be invalid. Tag Table Identifier values thus marked as    invalid are indicated as invalid in subsequent Continuation    Messages.-   v. The Time Interval of Next Call-Up included in the above    Continuation Message may further depend on additional information    sent in the Call-Up. This additional information may include, but is    not limited to a reason for a Call-Up, such as that the current UDDV    value on the User Device was determined by the Supervising Program    to have significantly changed from its previous value. In this case,    the Guardian Center may specify an earlier Time Interval of Next    Call-Up.-   vi. Referring to FIG. 8, at steps 801-802 the Supervising Program on    the receiving User Device accepts the Continuation Message if: a)    the signature associated with the Continuation Message is the    signature of the Guardian Center b) the signed continuation message    includes the Call-Up message just sent as a component c) The current    values of UDDV on the User Device do not appreciably differ with    from the UDDV used in the formation of the Call-Up message.-   vii. At step 803, if accepted, the received Continuation Message is    recorded as the most recent Continuation Message pertaining to the    Tag Table Identifier values (just TTID alone in the figure)    mentioned in it. At step 804-807, the validity of TTID is determined    by the Supervising Program according to this Continuation Message.    If TTID is determined to be valid, then the Tag Table TT continues    to be used 807. Otherwise the use of TT is not permitted and the    Tags in TT become invalid 805.    6. Time of Call-Up Credit.

As explained in U.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074, filed on Nov. 3,2000 the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference andabove, a Guardian Center's Continuation Message pertaining to a TagTable Identifier value TTID includes a pair (T1, T2) of time valuesindicating that the next Call-Up pertaining to TTID should occur, ingeneral, no earlier than time T1 and no later than time T2.Quantitatively controlled exceptions to this rule with respect to theearly time T1 can be made in order to facilitate transfers of Tag Tablesand their associated Identifier values from User Device to User Device,for example, in case of hardware upgrades. If a Call-Up pertaining toTTID is not made before the later time T2, then, again in general, theassociated Tag Table TT, the Tags contained in TT, and the copies ofsoftware associated with Tags in TT, cannot be used until such time thata Call-Up for TTID is made.

It may sometimes be impossible for a User Device to perform the requiredCall-Up for TTID before the specified time T2. For example, the UserDevice may not be able to connect to the Guardian Center because oftravel. It will be useful to allow continued use of TT and the softwareassociated with the Tags therein despite this failure to perform atimely Call-Up. An exemplary embodiment of this invention provides for asystem of Time Credits specifically associated with the Identifier valueTTID. The Guardian Center associates with the Identifier value TTID acredit C representing the total time available for the Identifier valueTTID to postpone Call-Ups. Each Continuation Message pertaining to TTIDincludes the time to Call-Up Credit value C currently available forpostponements. When the time T2 to the next Call-Up pertaining to TTIDpasses, use on the User Devices of Tag Table TT, the Tags contained init, and the copies of software associated with those tags may continueup to time T2+C, provided that the User Device Descriptive Values in theUser Device are not significantly different from those concealed in themost recently received Continuation Message (or perhaps any of the lastseveral Continuation Messages) pertaining to TTID. Referring to FIGS. 9and 10, when the next Call-Up from the User Device occurs at time T2+D(see step 901 and step 1001), then the Guardian Center at step 902 andstep 1002 verifies that the value C in Call-Up equals the Time Creditvalue associated with the Identifier TTID in the Guardian CenterDatabase. If not equal, then at step 906 and at step 1006 the Call-Up isignored. If equal, then at step 903 and step 1003, the excess delay timeD is subtracted by the Guardian Center from the Time of Next Call-UpCredit C. At step 903 and at step 1003 the difference (C-D) is comparedto 0. If positive, then at step 904 and at step 1004 the respondingContinuation Message contains the value C-D as the total time availableto postpone Call-Ups and this value is now associated with theidentifier value TTID. If C-D is negative, then in one exemplaryembodiment (at step 1005), the Continuation Message contains the value 0and in another the Continuation Message will contain the positive valueD-C (at step 905).

Referring to FIG. 1, in one embodiment, the Supervising Program inpreparing the Call-Up computes the current User Device DescriptiveValues. If these values are significantly different from those concealedin the last received Continuation Message, then at step 1101, theCall-Up message states this as a reason for the Call-Up. Processing ofCall-Up and preparation of Continuation Message by Guardian Centerproceed as described in Section 5 in conjunction with FIGS. 7 and 8. Atstep 1102, in the responding Continuation Message, from the GuardianCenter the Time of Call-Up Credit Value is 0, and this value 0 isassociated with the identifier value TTID. The purpose is to avoidcertain attacks in which Continuation Messages are transferred from UserDevice to User Device, and each such continuation Continuation messageMessage allows postponement of Call-Up, the sum of these postponementsenabling illegal overuse of software.

The Guardian Center may increase the Time of Next Call-Up creditassociated to TTID according to several rules. An exemplary rule is thatafter a specified number M of Call-Ups not involving a change of thecalling User Device's Descriptive Values, the Time of Next Call-Upcredit is restored to its original value C and returned to the UserDevice in a Continuation Message.

7. Mechanism to Establish a Proof of Purchase.

In U.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074, filed on Nov. 3, 2000 thecontents of which are incorporated herein by reference several methodsof paying for a Purchase Order 101 for Software SW were described. Inthe present invention, we add methods of payment to be employed when thepayment for SW occurs in a store prior to the procedure leading to thecreation of the Tag for SW. In an exemplary implementation,individualized information is attached in a concealed form to each copyof SW available in the store. The concealment can be achieved, forexample, by inserting this information into a sealed envelope attachedto the copy of software so that any tampering with the envelope will bereadily detected. In alternate embodiments, other methods of concealmentwell known to those skilled in the art can be used. An example of suchinformation is a unique number N(Copy of SW) randomly chosen by theVendor or the Author/Provider of SW from a large set of numbers. Becauseof the method of choice of the numbers N(copy of SW), it is unlikelythat a would-be outside pirate or thief can guess one of these numberson his own. Referring to FIG. 12, at step 1201 the Purchaser pays forand obtains the concealed information N(copy of SW), with or without SWitself, at the store. In the Purchasing procedure for SW described inU.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074, the Purchaser enters theinformation N(Copy of SW) upon demand from the Vendor. At step 1202, theVendor verifies that this unique information N(copy of SW) appears inthe list of numbers he has chosen to be associated with copies of SW andhas not yet been removed. If not, the verification fails, then at step1205 the Purchasing Procedure aborts. If so, the verification succeeds,then at step 1203, the Vendor then removes N(copy of SW) from the list,and in 1204 the Purchasing Procedure continues as detailed in U.S.application Ser. No. 09/706,074.

8. Continued Use of a Tag Table Identifier Value TTID after Compromise.

It is in the interest of Users to keep their Tag Table Identifier valuessecret. Failure to do so may result in loss to the User through theinvalidation of an Identifier value and the associated Tags by actionsof an unscrupulous person. Inadvertent revelation of Tag TableIdentifier values may however occur from time to time.

To recover from invalidation resulting from revelation of a Tag TableIdentifier value TTID, an exemplary embodiment of this inventionassociates with TTID a secret identifying string S called the OwnershipCertificate for the Identifier TTID. The Ownership Certificate S iscreated by the User through the Supervising Program and, in an exemplaryembodiment, is sent to the Guardian Center with the first Call-Upmessage pertaining to TTID. The Guardian Center records the associationbetween TTID and the Ownership Certificate S. To maintain security, theCertificate S is securely stored by the User, to be subsequently usedonly if and when the Identifier TTID is invalidated.

Referring to FIG. 13, at step 1301, if a User finds that the Identifiervalue TTID has been invalidated, the User securely sends, a message(TTID, S), to the Guardian Center requesting a Replacement Identifiervalue for TTID. At step 1302, the Guardian Center verifies, theassociation between TTID and S. If the verification is successful, thenat step 1303, the Guardian Center securely returns a ReplacementIdentifier value TTID1 to the User Device. This is done by sending amessage (TTID,TTID1), digitally signed by the Guardian Center. In thepreferred embodiment, the Guardian Center may inform the User Device,within the digitally signed message, that TTID 1 may not be used for aspecified time period P. In the lifetime of a Tag Table Identifier valueTTID, several Replacement Identifier values for TTID may be successivelyissued.

Upon receiving the signed message SIGN_GC(TTID, TTID1) at the UserDevice, at step 1304 the Supervising Program, verifies the digitalsignature and if the verification is successful at step 1305, stores theReplacement Identifier value TTID1 in the Tag Table TT originallyassociated with the Identifier value TTID. Henceforth, the SupervisingProgram employs the Replacement Identifier value TTID1 when makingrequired Call-Ups for the Tag Table TT. In an exemplary embodiment, thePurchasing Program and Supervising Program continue to use theIdentifier value TTID when purchasing software and creating and usingTags associated with software, when these Tags are stored in the TagTable TT originally having the Identifier value TTID.

The Guardian Center replaces in the data structure used according to thereferenced Invention to monitor Call-Ups involving the Identifier TTID,by the Replacement Identifier value TTID1. As explained above, theSupervising Program from now on uses the value TTID1 when makingCall-Ups for the Tag Table TT. Thus, these Call-Ups will be referred tothe correct data structure. The replaced original value TTID is storedin a Blocking Table. Referring to FIG. 14, when a Call-Up involving anyTag Table Identifier value V is made at step 1401, the Guardian Centerfirst checks, at step 1402, whether V is included in the Blocking Table,if so, then, at step 1404, the Call-Up is ignored. In an alternateembodiment, if V is found in the Blocking Table, the Guardian Centerreturns a signed message not allowing use of V to the User Device makingthe Call-Up. If the value V is not found in the Blocking Table, then, atstep 1403, the Continuation Message is prepared by the Guardian Centerin the manner explained above in Section 5.

An alternate exemplary embodiment of the invention retains the BlockingTable but the creation of the Replacement Identifier value TTID1 is donein a different way. In that embodiment, the User Device, generates anumber s and then applies a one-way function f to that number,generating a sequence of length M of values, f(s), f(f(s))=f^2(s),f(f(f(s)))=f^3(s), . . . , f^M(s). The initial Tag Table Identifiervalue for the Tag Table TT is TTID=f^M(s). The Supervising Programstores the number s securely for later use to create ReplacementIdentifier values when the need arises. Referring to FIG. 15, at step1501, in the initial Call-Up to register the Identifier value TTID withthe Guardian Center, the Supervising Program in the User Device storingthe Tag Table TT, sends the one way function f as well as TTID=f^M(s),but not the value s, to the Guardian Center. The Guardian Center createsa data structure for subsequent Call-Ups involving the Identifier valueTTID, and correlates it with the function f.

In another embodiment, the function f is part of the Guardian Center andall Supervising Programs use the same function f. Continuing to thedescription of the creation of a Replacement Identifier value when theneed arises, if the Identifier value TTID=f^M(s) is invalidated throughmalicious action, then the Replacement Identifier value isTTID1=f^(M−1)(s). At step 1502, upon discovering that TTID has beeninvalidated, the User securely sends the pair (TTID, TTID1) to theGuardian Center, thereby requesting a replacement of TTID by the valueTTID1. At step 1503, when receiving the pair (TTID, TTID1) from theSupervising Program, the Guardian Center tests the validity of theReplacement Identifier value TTID by verifying that TTID1=f(TTID). Ifthis verification succeeds then, at step 1504, all other steps ofhandling the replacement proceed as described for the embodiment shownin FIG. 13. If later on, the identifier TTID1 needs to be replaced, thenthe Supervising Program uses TTID2=f^(M−2)(s) and everything proceeds aspreviously explained. This process can be used to implement up to Msuccessive replacements of the Tag Table Identifier value for the TagTable TT. The advantage of this embodiment is that the User Device'sSupervising Program never needs to send s to the Guardian Center, thusavoiding the danger of that this crucial value being captured by amalicious adversary.

9. Protection Against Denial of Service Attacks.

The Guardian Centers and the Protection Information Centers of thereferenced and present inventions are exposed, like any server in anysystem, to attacks by a malicious and coordinated flooding with messagesand requests. There are well-known counter measures to such attacks.Here we describe methods for dealing with attacks which are tailored tothe centers mentioned above. One method of attack is for maliciousagents to attempt to register in the Guardian Center a very large numberof fictitious Tag Table Identifier values, thereby overloading itsstorage and slowing down its response time. Another form of attack isthe generation of a large number of Call-Ups concerning Tag TableIdentifier values already present in the Guardian Center. Both attacksare countered by making these operations cost time or money to theattackers.

In one exemplary embodiment, the protocols for Call-Ups to a GuardianCenter by a User Device requires of the User Device to solve atime-consuming puzzle as a condition for that Call-Up to be processed bythe Guardian Center. The Guardian Center has a Gateway front-endcomputer. The Gateway receives a request from User Devices to perform aCall-Up and sends back a puzzle to be solved by the User Device. Only ifthe actual Call-Up is prefaced with the solution to the puzzle will theCall-Up be allowed to proceed. The literature contains several examplesof puzzles usable to this end and any person versed in the art canreadily create or adapt an appropriate puzzle for the purposes of thisInvention. Similar techniques may be used to defend the other ProtectionInformation Centers.

In an alternate embodiment of the invention, the excessive registrationof Tag Table Identifier values in the Guardian Center is avoided bycharging a specified amount of money for each registration.

10. Isolated Protection Centers

In this invention, there are several servers of security informationthat we call Protection Centers. These include Guardian Centers 130(FIG. 1), Superfingerprint/Protection Information Centers 150 (FIG. 1)and Certified Time Servers 160 (FIG. 1). In one exemplary embodiment ofU.S. application Ser. No. 09/706,074 and the present invention, allthese centers employ a Master Digital Signature Key denoted SIG_MASTERwhose corresponding verification key VER_MASTER is stored in every UserDevice. Certain trusted large organizations in government or industrywill want to control their own Protection Information Centers so as toavoid Call-Ups to and messages from outside computers, which wouldexpose the organization to hacker attacks. The Protection InformationCenters contain the master signature key SIG_MASTER which if leaked outwould potentially enable piracy of software. Allowing the Organizationsseeking to maintain private protection information centers to havecontrol of the Master Digital Signature Key increases the risk that thiskey may be revealed to pirates.

In an exemplary embodiment, such organizations may maintain privateProtection Information Centers employing signature and verification keysof their own without exposure, while avoiding the danger of the MasterDigital Signature Key SIG_MASTER being revealed. We discuss thisarrangement in general for any Protection Center. An OrganizationProtection Center is a Protection Center controlled by an Organization.Referring to FIG. 16, at step 1601 the Organization generates its ownsignature/verification key VER_ORG and securely sends the verificationkey to an outside Protection Center having the Master Signature KeySIG_MASTER. At step 1602, the outside Protection Center digitally signsthe Verification Key: SIG_MASTER(VER_ORG, other information)authenticating the validity of the Verification Key for User Deviceswithin that Organization. The other information within this digitallysigned message includes, in the preferred embodiment, an expiration dateand characterization of properties of User Devices that may use VER_ORG.The inclusion of an expiration date for a Verification Key VER_ORGlimits the exposure to piracy in case this key is revealed outside theOrganization. Then, at step 1603, the Organization distributesSIG_MASTER(VER_ORG, other information) to all its User Devices and cansubsequently, at step 1604, use its own digital signature key SIG_ORGfor signing Continuation Messages and other messages from theOrganization Protection Centers to User Devices within the Organization.Those User Devices use the Organization's Verification Key VER_ORG toverify the signatures on those messages after verifying the digitalsignature on the message SIG_MASTER(VER_ORG, other information) by usingthe Signature Verification Key VER_MASTER stored on said User Devicesand after verifying the other information included in that message, atsteps 1605-1607. In all other aspects the methods of U.S. applicationSer. No. 09/706,074 and present Invention are implemented without changein the Organization Protection Centers and the User Devices internal tothe Organization.

11. Non-Repudiation.

Because our invention is privacy-preserving, there is a potentialproblem if the Guardian Center ever invalidates a TTID: The user maydeny ever having sent the call-ups that caused this TTID to beinvalidated. We can make these Call-Ups impossible to repudiate.Referring to FIG. 17, one way to do this is, upon creation of a TTID t,the User Device, at step 1701, creates a signing, verifying signaturepair (s,v), puts the Verification Key v on an independent auditor's siteat step 1702, and, at step 1703, the auditor sends v to the GuardianCenter. Each Call-Up for t is signed by the User Device using thesignature key s. If many TTIDs are included in the same Call-Up, thenall their signatures are attached in the order of their TTIDs. When theGuardian Center receives a Call-Up, it may verify the signatures. Inthis way, the user cannot repudiate his Call-Ups.

12. Trusted Clock

A reliably advancing clock is important to several embodiments of ourinvention. The Trusted Clock on the User Device should advance inaccordance with Certified Time Servers where these Certified TimeServers are set to Greenwich Mean Time. The User Device may show a localtime to the User by means of an appropriate offset to the Trusted Clock.A second clock may be entirely under user control but all eventspertaining to this invention will pertain to the Trusted Clock, not thesecond one nor the offset on the Trusted Clock. The intent is that usersare able to change the value of the Trusted Clock to be ahead of thetime at the Certified Time Server, but not before.

This invention contains several mechanisms to support this intent.First, the Supervising Program allows the Trusted Clock to be setforward. Second, if the Trusted Clock is set backward then an“Adjustment Time Check” is performed as illustrated in FIG. 18. TheAdjustment Time Check ensures that the time to which the Trusted Clockhas been set is greater than or equal to the time of the Certified TimeServer. In an alternative embodiment, the new time may be set to a timebefore the time of the Certified Time Server by a pre-specified amount.

Referring to FIG. 18, at step 1801, the User attempts to change the timeof the Trusted Clock on the User Device. At step 1802, the supervisingprogram checks whether the time is advancing. If so, then the request isgranted as illustrated in 1804. Otherwise processing proceeds to step1806, where the Supervising Program requests the current time from theCertified Time Server. This Time Request contains a NONCE N. TheSupervising Program waits for a response in a short time, but if itdoesn't receive one, it resends the request with a new nonce N′. TheCertified Time Server sends a digitally signed message SGN_TS(Nonce,Current Time) where the Nonce is the latest Nonce value sent by theSupervising Program. At step 1808, if this response arrives within aspecified number of seconds from the time of the last request, executionproceeds to step 1812. Otherwise the request is denied at step 1810. Atstep 1812, the Supervising Program verifies that the signature belongsto the Time Server, that the Nonce is the one last sent by theSupervising Program, and that the Current Time returned is less than orequal to the Desired Clock Value. If all these verifications succeed,then execution proceeds to step 1804 where the request is granted.Otherwise at step 810 the request is denied.

Third, when the Supervising Program is first brought up or when it firstconnects to the internet or if it observes files that have a later datethan the date held on the Trusted Clock, the Supervising Programperforms a Standard Time Check to ensure the Trusted Clock is greaterthan or equal to the time at the Certified Time Server. Fourth, as abackup, receipt of mail or other events will, or the passage of time,with some probability, cause a Standard Time Check to verify that theTrusted Clock has an appropriate value. A Standard Time Check works asin FIG. 19.

Referring to FIG. 19, at step 1856, the Supervising Program requests thecurrent time from the Certified Time Server. This Time Request containsa NONCE N. The Supervising Program waits for a response in a short time,but if it doesn't receive one, it resends the request with a new nonceN′. The Certified Time Server sends a signed message SGN_TS(Nonce,Current Time) where the Nonce is the latest Nonce value sent by theSupervising Program. At step 1858, if this response arrives within aspecified number of seconds from the request, execution proceeds to step1862. Otherwise punitive action is initiated at step 1860. At step 1862,the Supervising Program verifies that the signature belongs to the TimeServer, that the Nonce is the one last sent by the Supervising Program,and that the Current Time returned is less than or equal to the CurrentClock Value. In an alternate embodiment, the Current Time may be greaterthan the Current Clock Value but only by a small pre-specified amount.If all these verifications succeed, then execution proceeds to step 1870where normal processing continues. Otherwise punitive action isinitiated at step 1860.

13. Protection Against Piracy of Second-Level Content

Second-Level Content is content accessed on a User Device by a ReaderProgram. Examples include but are not limited to: The Adobe PDF Readerenables Users to read books in digital form and the book is theSecond-Level Content; a Java Virtual Machine reads and executes a Javaprogram and the Java program is the Second-Level Content; an electronicgame program enables a User to play a game and the images and other dataused in the game are the Second-Level Content; a DVD player programplays a digitized movie and that movie is the Second-Level Content. WhenSecond-Level Content is provided by Vendors or Providers/Authors whohave intellectual property and other rights in this Content, theserights can be protected by the methods and mechanisms of the referencedand present inventions. The protection is implemented in four majorsteps. First, referring to FIG. 20, at step 1901, the use of the Readeron the User Device is detected by the Supervising Program according tothe methods and mechanisms of the referenced and present inventions.Second, at step 1902, information about the function of the Reader isincluded in the Protection Information List present in the User Deviceand is used by the Supervising Program to locate portions of theSecond-Level Content being read by the Reader. Third, at step 1903,Superfingerprints and other Protection Information present in the UserDevice is used by the Supervising Program according to the methods andmechanisms of the referenced and present inventions to identify theSecond-Level Content being read by the Reader. Fourth, at step 1904,once said Content is identified, the Supervising Program determines bythe methods and mechanisms of the referenced and present inventionswhether the use of this Second-Level Content is allowed on the UserDevice, and acts according to this determination.

While this invention has been particularly shown and described withreferences to preferred embodiments thereof, it will be understood bythose skilled in the art that various changes in form and details may bemade therein without departing from the scope of the inventionencompassed by the appended claims.

1. A method used by a protection center of sending protectioninformation for protected software to a class of user devices havingcommon properties comprising the steps of: signing a message includingsaid protection information to be sent, the common properties, and anexpiration time for said protection information; sending the signedprotection information from a protection center to a class of userdevices, such that the protection information identifies the protectedsoftware without revealing information about a user to whom theprotected software was sold; verifying the signed protection informationusing a verification key; receiving said signed message by a supervisingprogram on each user device; at each user device, using the protectioninformation to detect and prevent infringing use of the protectedsoftware by verifying, using the supervising program, that the messagehas been signed by said protection center using a verification key onsaid user device, that said common properties correspond to one or moreof a set of actual properties of the user device and a set of propertieslisted in the supervising program, and that the expiration time isgreater than a current time, where the protection informationfacilitates the detection and prevention of infringing use of theprotected software without requiring modification of the protectedsoftware; and upon successful verification, accepting the message by theuser device.
 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:sending said signed message to user devices; and downloading said signedmessage by one of the user devices from one of said other user devices.3. The method of claim 2 wherein the step of sending sends to at leastone storage device and the step of downloading downloads from the atleast one storage device.
 4. A system used by a protection center ofsending protection information to a class of user devices having commonproperties comprising: means for signing a message including saidprotection information to be sent, the common properties, and anexpiration time for said protection information; means for sending thesigned protection information from a protection center to a class ofuser devices, such that the protection information identifies theprotected software without revealing information about a user to whomthe protected software was sold; means for verifying the signedprotection information using a verification key; means for receivingsaid signed message by a supervising program on each user device; ateach user device, means for using the protection information to detectand prevent infringing use of protected software by verifying, using thesupervising program, that the message has been signed by said protectioncenter using a verification key on said user device, that said commonproperties correspond to one or more of a set of actual properties ofthe user device and a set of properties listed in the supervisingprogram, and that the expiration time is greater than a current time,the protection information facilitating the detection and prevention ofinfringing use of the protected software without requiring modificationof the protected software; and upon successful verification, acceptingthe message by the user device.
 5. A system of controlling use ofprotected software on a user device, the system comprising: one or moreprocessors configured to process a call-up message generated by a userdevice, the call-up message facilitating prevention of piracy of theprotected software, the call-up message configured to include: a tagtable identifier value associated with the protected software; a set ofuser device descriptive values, where one or more of the user devicedescriptive values provide information concerning a state associatedwith the user device; a nonce; and a one-way function; and said one-wayfunction is applied to said set of user device descriptive values andsaid nonce to provide a one-way function result value that conceals theuser device descriptive values from other devices, where the concealingof the user device descriptive values from other devices providesprivacy protection for a user of the user device; and the call-upmessage configured to prevent the tag table identifier value associatedwith the protected software from being used simultaneously on more thanone user device.
 6. The system of claim 5 wherein the user device sendsthe call-up message to a guardian center; and the guardian centerresponding to the call-up message by invalidating the tag tableidentifier value if the tag table identifier value has been associatedwith more than a specified number of call-ups over a period of time. 7.The system of claim 5 wherein the user device sends the call-up messageto a guardian center; and the guardian center responds to the call-upmessage by securely sending a signed continuation message including saidtag table identifier value and said one-way function value in thecall-up message.
 8. The system of claim 7 wherein the continuationmessage is used in connection with controlling use of the protectedsoftware on the user device.
 9. The system of claim 7 further comprisinga supervising program executing on the user device; the supervisingprogram verifying the signature on the continuation message; thesupervising program verifying that the continuation message includessaid call-up message; the supervising program invalidating theassociated tag table, for each said invalidated tag table identifiervalue; and the supervising program storing the continuation message onthe user device.
 10. The system of claim 9 wherein the supervisingprogram invalidates all tags associated with said invalidated tagtables.
 11. The system of claim 9 wherein in response to receiving a newtag table identifier value, the supervising program includes said newtag table identifier value in a future call-up message; the guardiancenter verifying an association between said new tag table identifiervalue and said original tag table identifier value; and the guardiancenter performing further processing based on said original tag tableidentifier value.
 12. The system of claim 5 wherein the user devicedescriptive values include one or more of the following: number of fileson the user device, size of files on the user device, number ofdirectories on the user device, characteristics of indexes used toaccess data, a processor identifying number, a BIOS identifier, or anetwork interface identifier.
 13. The system of claim 5 wherein the userdevice descriptive values include biometric information about aparticular individual associated with the user device.
 14. The system ofclaim 5 wherein the user device descriptive values are chosen such thatthey are slowly changing, if at all, during use of the user device. 15.The system of claim 9 wherein the supervising program determines creditsassociated with the tag table identifier value, where the creditsrepresent the total time available to postpone a call-up message; andthe supervising program preventing the use of credits if the user devicedescriptive values have changed since the occurrence of a previouscontinuation message.
 16. The system of claim 9 wherein the supervisingprogram determines credits associated with the tag table identifiervalue, where the credits represent the total time available to postponea call-up; and the guardian center decreasing the credits if the userdevice indicates in a call-up message that its user device descriptivevalues have changed.
 17. The system of claim 5 wherein the call-upmessage is processed at the guardian center to facilitate detection ofuse of an infringing copy of software on the user device; and theguardian center responding to a tag table identifier value that is beingused simultaneously on multiple user devices by sending a continuationmessage specifying that the tag table identifier value is invalid. 18.The system of claim 9 wherein processing, by an authorized server,call-up messages to detect use of an infringing copy of software on theuser device further includes responding to determining that a tag tableidentifier value is being used simultaneously on multiple user devicesby sending a continuation message specifying that the tag tableidentifier value is invalid.
 19. The system of claim 18 wherein theother device is the authorized server.
 20. A system of re-establishingownership of a tag table, the system comprising: an authorized server incommunication with a user device, the authorized server receiving amessage regulated to re-establishing ownership of a tag table; themessage including a new tag table identifier, an original tag tableidentifier, an original tag table identifier and an ownershipcertificate pertaining to the original tag table identifier, where thenew tag table identifier identifies a tag table having one or more tags,the tags indicating a right to use protected software; the authorizedserver verifying that said ownership certificate pertains to theoriginal tag table identifier and securely sending to the user device adigitally signed message allowing the user device to employ the new tagtable identifier; and the authorized server creating an associationbetween said new tag table identifier and said original tag tableidentifier, said new tag table identifier and said tag table identifierboth related to said original tag table identifier.